Christopher G. Riggs

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was clearly moot and involved no issue that would warrant the court exercising its discretion to hear it anyway.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed his complaint that his termination was tainted by anti-union animus.

The applicant argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard of proof and made several evidentiary errors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, applied the correct legal test, and was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision that prohibited assigning teachers more than three courses per semester without agreement.

The school board argued that teachers had an implied duty to act reasonably when refusing consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the provision granted an absolute right to withhold consent was reasonable and well within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant sought judicial review of two arbitration awards dealing with return to work grievances following a strike by academic staff.

The arbitration board had concluded that the collective agreement's workload provisions did not apply and developed its own principles to award additional compensation.

The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the language of the Return to Work Protocol and the collective agreement, which did not confer jurisdiction to create new compensation criteria.

The application for judicial review was granted, the awards were quashed, and the grievances were remitted to a different arbitration board.

The applicant, a graduate student, sought judicial review of a university disciplinary decision that resulted in a formal reprimand for harassment under the Code of Student Conduct.

He argued that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not permitted legal representation at the initial hearing before the Vice-Provost, that the decision was unreasonable, and that it violated his Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was fair given the context and minor sanctions, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply, the decision was reasonable, and the Charter did not apply to the university's internal disciplinary process.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing that the Board's mid-hearing decision to require will-say statements and limit examination-in-chief to thirty minutes was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no prospect of real unfairness on the record and noting that judicial review of administrative action during a pending hearing should generally be avoided until the hearing is completed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent university sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent university fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the application served no public benefit, was based on voluminous materials, and was presented in a laborious manner that added significantly to the university's costs.

The applicant, a university instructor, sought judicial review of an investigator's report and the university's subsequent determination dismissing her workplace harassment and discrimination complaint against a colleague.

The parties had previously agreed to bypass the collective agreement's formal inquiry panel process in favour of a private investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the customized, private process lacked the requisite public character to be amenable to judicial review, and also dismissed a motion to set aside a single judge's order striking the applicant's affidavit for containing inadmissible evidence.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

After the first day of the hearing, the applicant's counsel withdrew.

The applicant failed to file a required written statement of evidence and failed to appear at the continued hearing dates.

Despite attempts by the Tribunal to contact the applicant and obtain a written explanation for his absence, no adequate explanation was provided.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate by the NHL, the Tribunal ruled on evidentiary and production issues.

The Tribunal excluded the proposed testimony of two former officials regarding the NHL's general culture around injury reporting, finding it irrelevant, tantamount to character evidence, and not qualifying as similar fact evidence.

The Tribunal permitted another witness to testify by teleconference.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for broad document production concerning other officials' injuries, grievances, and promotions, concluding the documents were not relevant to the specific allegations of discrimination.

The applicant, a university professor, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

She claimed that her promotion process to full Professor was marred by discriminatory factors, that she experienced a negative salary differential compared to a male colleague, and that the university failed to properly investigate her complaints.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced difficulties in her promotion process, there was no evidence that these difficulties or her salary differential were due to her sex.

The Tribunal also found that the university did not breach its duty to investigate under the Code, as the initial complaints did not specifically allege discrimination on Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed a union grievance regarding balance and deposit time for collectors on overtime shifts.

The applicant argued the arbitrator breached natural justice and reached an unreasonable decision by relying on a without-prejudice settlement.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator erred in admitting the settlement, this did not amount to a denial of natural justice.

The court concluded the arbitrator's decision was reasonable as it was independently supported by uncontradicted evidence and the wording of a prior agreement.

The appellant, Hydro One Inc., appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Financial Services Tribunal order for a partial wind-up of its pension plan under s. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

Following a corporate merger, the employment of 73 Management Compensation Plan (MCP) employees was terminated.

The Tribunal used a 'subset analysis' to determine that a 'significant number' of plan members had been terminated, comparing the number of terminated MCP employees to the total number of active MCP plan members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 69(1)(d) permits a subset analysis in appropriate circumstances and that the Tribunal's application of this analysis was reasonable given that the merger intentionally targeted senior employees nearing retirement.

The applicant, a university faculty member alleging sex discrimination in her promotion process, sought production of documents relating to a male colleague who was promoted around the same time.

The respondent and intervenors opposed production, arguing the documents were irrelevant and protected by confidentiality privilege.

The Tribunal ordered production of the male colleague's curriculum vitae, salary information, redacted reference letters, and redacted transmittal letter, finding them relevant as comparator evidence and not privileged under the Wigmore test.

Student course evaluations were not ordered produced as the applicant's own evaluations were not in evidence.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, the Tribunal revoked a previous order granting intervener status to the Faculty Association after clarifying that the individual who filed the request did not represent the Association.

The Tribunal also established a timetable for written submissions regarding the applicant's request for production of a colleague's promotion file and salary information, directing that notice be given to the affected third party.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the assignment of teaching duties to principals and vice-principals.

The school board's assignment of these duties resulted in partial redundancies for some bargaining unit teachers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.

The court held that section 287.1(1) of the Education Act unambiguously permits a school board to assign teaching duties to principals and vice-principals, and that such assignments did not constitute a declaration of redundancy under O. Reg. 90/98.

The applicant, a former municipal employee, sought judicial review and an order of mandamus reinstating him to his position after being dismissed without cause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the employer-employee relationship was effectively ended and beyond repair.

Applying Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, the court held that the dismissal of a public employee under a contract of employment is governed by contract law, not public law, and that the applicant's remedies lie in an action for wrongful dismissal.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin during his postulancy process to become an Anglican Priest.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the postulancy relationship does not constitute 'services' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the postulancy period involves interactions that provide a mutual benefit, satisfying the preliminary threshold for a service relationship.

The respondents' request to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was denied, and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been terminated for professional misconduct involving special needs students.

The arbitration board found the teacher's conduct warranted a significant disciplinary response but not termination, effectively imposing a four-and-a-half-year suspension without pay.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's decision to give the teacher a second chance fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was supported by the evidence.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had found that the grievor committed serious misconduct but revoked all discipline, including a transfer, because an initial reprimand was given without union representation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that while the arbitrator reasonably found a breach of the representation clause, automatically revoking the transfer was unreasonable given the irrevocable breakdown of the working relationship.

The court quashed the revocation of the transfer but upheld the revocation of the suspension.